[Lnc-business] EC meeting tonight, Thursday, Sept 21, 9:30pm Eastern regarding Husted Amicus Brief

Thu Sep 21 23:52:28 EDT 2017

Thanks for the update.  I regret being unable to attend to observe this
meeting.

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry that those last two messages are incoherent.  Just frustrated and
> not pacing myself to edit before hitting send.  Regardless of the interim
> babble, my original understanding seems to be correct that its "four more"
> years AFTER the mailing.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Doh!  I'm writing too quickly without editing.  I meant "four OR more
>> years" rather than "for OR more years"...
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, in my rush read, I saw "for OR more years", but it's just "four
>>> more years", which is what I thought was the case.
>>>
>>> -Alicia
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read these case filings before, and haven't had time to do it all
>>>> again, but I was under the impression that the four years of inactivity was
>>>> AFTER the mailing.
>>>>
>>>> As I'm staring at the language I quoted from the petition for writ, it
>>>> says "fail to engage in voter activity for four more years".  It is not
>>>> clear if that four years is after the mailing, or if it includes the
>>>> non-voting time prior to the mailing, though I thought from my prior reads
>>>> that it was post-mailing.
>>>>
>>>> Even if it is the more restrictive option, still in Mr. Redpath's
>>>> example, because the person voted in the prior presidential election, it
>>>> wouldn't be until after the next presidential election that he could be
>>>> purged, right?
>>>>
>>>> I just have to object to the way this decision was made, with us being
>>>> pushed at the last minute and making a decision when we can't even
>>>> establish the facts, and the oddity of still gathering information during
>>>> the vote with no opportunity to challenge those new details being asserted.
>>>>
>>>> It's not like we are going to call another EC meeting even tonight to
>>>> sort this out before 9 a.m. tomorrow, and by now Dr. Lark is likely on a
>>>> plane and unable to chime in at all.
>>>>
>>>> -Alicia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I must take issue with what just happened at the end of the EC call.
>>>>> The vote was tied 2-2 with Mr. Redpath abstaining.  After giving him time
>>>>> to ponder, he still wanted to abstain.  Then we gave great allowance for
>>>>> him to drop off the call, phone Richard Winger to ask about a particular
>>>>> fact pattern, and then he called back in - before we called the vote closed.
>>>>>
>>>>> When he called back in, he indicated that his understanding was that
>>>>> if a person:
>>>>> 1)  votes in the Presidential election in Ohio, and
>>>>> 2)  does not vote in the odd-numbered year, and
>>>>> 3)  does not vote in the mid-term, and
>>>>> 4)  is sent the mailing, but does not respond, and
>>>>> 5)  goes back to the polls in the following Presidential election,
>>>>> THEN, he will not be able to vote in the Presidential election in item
>>>>> 5).
>>>>>
>>>>> On the basis of that understanding, he changed his vote to yes, making
>>>>> the motion pass rather than fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expressed that I did not think that fact pattern was correct, but we
>>>>> were in the middle of a vote when we're not supposed to be debating, and
>>>>> nobody on the call could say for sure whether it was correct, and I can't
>>>>> really go research past case filings while I play Secretary.
>>>>>
>>>>> As soon as I got off the phone, I went back to the links previously
>>>>> provided to us.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the petition for writ of certiorari, which can be found here:
>>>>> http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/16-980-
>>>>> Cert-Reply.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> the first page of text explains the process as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> "This process sends confirmation notices to voters who lack voter
>>>>> activity over two years, and removes individuals from the rolls if they
>>>>> both fail to respond to the notice and fail to engage in voter activity for
>>>>> four more years."
>>>>>
>>>>> In the situation Mr. Redpath presented above, even after failing to
>>>>> respond to the mailing, the person would not be removed from the rolls
>>>>> before the next election cycle.  They would be removed only after failing
>>>>> to vote in TWO election cycles following the mailing, but if they showed up
>>>>> to vote in the first Presidential election following the mailing, he would
>>>>> be able to vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what just happened seems to be that during the vote, the person who
>>>>> held the deciding vote was given time to gather facts, the facts he got
>>>>> seem to me to be incorrect, and there was no opportunity for us during
>>>>> debate to really disavow him of that stated understanding in the middle of
>>>>> the vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the vote was closed, and this amicus has to be filed by noon
>>>>> Eastern tomorrow, when there is no more chance for us to examine the
>>>>> "facts" that determined the outcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Secretary may send another more formal notice later, but the
>>>>>> chair asked me to rush this out since notice is short.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BEFORE CALLING IN, CHECK EMAIL IN CASE SOME DETAIL CHANGES.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Date:  Thursday, September 21, 2017
>>>>>> Time:  9:30 p.m. Eastern / 6:30 p.m. Pacific
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dial-in: 712-770-8044
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guest Pin Code: 396415
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The meeting is being called to discuss whether to sign on as an
>>>>>> amicus in Husted v. APRI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>>>>>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>>>>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
>>>>>> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
>>>>>> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>>>>>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170921/f2f25acf/attachment-0002.html>